Ekdanta Land Pvt. Ltd., Raigad V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 1400/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5225 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-09-2018
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 28-10-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHABANA PARVEEN
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Search and seizure; Loose papers; Document seized; Question of law; Documents seized
• Section: 69C; 132

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE , . , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKAR A RAO, AM . / ITA NO.1400/PUN/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 EKDANTA LAND PVT. LTD., OFFICE NO.D-416, 7 TH FLOOR, PLOT NO.6, SECTOR-11, DRONAGIRI, TAL. URAN 400702 PAN : AABCE8248C . /APPELLANT VS. ITO, WARD-3, PANVEL, NAVI MUMBAI . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI PRAMOD SHINGTE / RESPONDENT BY : MS. SHABANA PARVEEN / DATE OF HEARING : 06.09.2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17.10.2018 / ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF C IT(A)-2, THANE, DATED 25-03-2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN REJECTING THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C OF THE IT. ACT, 1961 ('THE AC T') ARE BAD-IN-LAW EVEN THOUGH NO ASSESSMENT OR RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS I N RELATION TO THIS YEAR WERE PENDING AS ON THE DATE OF THE SEARCH U/S.132 O F THE ACT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN REJECTING THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT INVOKING OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT WAS BAD-IN-LA W IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VAL UABLE ARTICLES OR THINGS OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED WHICH ARE BELONGING OR BELONGED TO THE APPELLANT AND WHICH DISCLOSED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD INCURRED UNACCOUNTED EXPENDITURE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE IN LANDS U/S.69C OF THE ACT , IGNORING THE ITA NO.1400/PUN/2015 EKDANTA LAND PVT. LTD., 2 EXPLANATION OF SEIZED MATERIAL AND APPELLANT'S RELI ANCE OF VARIOUS DECISIONS. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED U NEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE OF RS.3,83,79,300/- MAY BE DELETED. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN BRINGING NEW EVIDENCES OF PATHIK CONSTRUCTION AND SH. SUNIL GULATI ON RECORD AND DISCUSSING THE SAME IN THE APPELLATE ORDER EVEN THOUGH THE SAME HAS NO CONNECTION WITH THE FAC TS OF THE APPELLANT. THE LEARNED A.O. HAS ALSO MADE NO REFERENCE OF THESE EV IDENCES WHILE REACHING ITS CONCLUSION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THESE EVIDE NCES ARE, THEREFORE, IRRELEVANT AND OUT OF CONTEXT SO FAR AS THE APPELLA NT IS CONCERNED. IT IS PRAYED THAT THESE EVIDENCES MAY KINDLY BE IGNORED. 5. ON THE FACTS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW, THE HON'BLE CIT (A) ERRED IN RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MALIK BROS (P) LTD VS CIT (162 TAXMAN 43). IN TH E APPELLANT'S CASE, NONE OF THE LAND OWNERS FROM WHOM LAND HAS BEEN PURCHASED B Y THE APPELLANT CONFIRMED THE RECEIPT OF CASH PAYMENT. THESE REMARK S OF THE HON'BLE CIT (A) ARE ERRONEOUS REMARKS. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THESE ERRONEOUS REMARKS OF THE HON'BLE CIT (A) MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 6. ON THE FACTS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE CHARGE OF INTEREST U/S.234B AND 234C OF THE ACT, HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE APPELL ANT DENIES IT LIABILITY FOR PAYMENT OF INTEREST U/S.234B & 234C OF THE ACT. 7. EACH ONE OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS WITHO UT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 3. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS INCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF LAND DEALS. ASSESSEE FILED THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME ON 21-09-2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.7,300/-. THERE WAS SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S.132 OF THE ACT IN THE JAI CO RP GROUP OF COMPANIES, ITS EMPLOYEES AND CLOSE ASSOCIATES. SHRI DILIP DHER AI IS ONE SUCH PERSON COVERED IN THE SEARCH AND HE WAS INCHARGE OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ON BEHALF OF THE 62 OTHER COMPANIES. THE SEARC H RESULTED IN SEIZURE OF VARIOUS INCRIMINATING EVIDENCES/DOCUMENTS/LOOSE PAPERS ETC. THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS REVEAL THE DETAILS RELATING TO LAND TRANSACTIONS IN THE 62 COMPANIES AND THE ASSESSEE IS ONE AMONG THEM. THE DOCUMENTS INDICATE THE UNACCOUNTED CASH PAYMENTS FOR ACQUISITION OF LANDS. STATEMENT OF SHRI DILIP DHERAI WAS RECORDED AND CONFRONTED WITH THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES. STATEMENT O F SHRI ANAND JAIN (MAIN PERSON OF JAI CORP GROUP) WAS ALSO RECORDED. AO FOUND THAT THE ITA NO.1400/PUN/2015 EKDANTA LAND PVT. LTD., 3 CONTENTS OF THE SAID LOOSE PAPERS ARE RECORDED IN THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE EXCEPT THE TRANSACTIONS MENTIONED IN COLUM N CASH PAYMENT. SHRI DILIP DHERAI AGREED ABOUT THE CASH PAYMENTS AND RET RACTED LATERON BY STATING THAT THE STATEMENT RECORDED WAS UNDER PRESSURE AND C OERCION. AT THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO INVOKE D THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69C OF THE ACT AND MADE ADDITION OF R S.3.84 CRORES (ROUNDED OFF) AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. 4. IN THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. WHILE COMING TO THE ABOVE CONCLUSION, THE CIT(A) RELIED ON THE DECISION OF MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF HIRALAL MAGANLAL & CO VS. DCIT REPORTED IN 96 ITD 113 (MUM)/(2005) 97 TTJ (MUM) 377. 5. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL WITH THE GROUNDS MENTIONED ABOVE. 6. BEFORE US, ON THE SAID ADDITION, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE AGGREGATORS OF LAND FOR JAI CORP. LTD. M/S.JAI CORP. LTD. HAS A PROJECT OF ESTABLISHING A SEZ. DURING THE SEARCH ACTION, THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS INDICATING THE CASH P AYMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE SAID PURCHASE OF THE LANDS WERE DISCO VERED. SHRI DILIP DHERAI, WHO IS A DIRECTOR OF JAI CORP LTD. GAVE A STATEME NT OFFERING THE SAID CASH PAYMENTS AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF JAI CORP. LTD. S UBSEQUENTLY, THE STATEMENT WAS RETRACTED. AS PER THE SAID DOCUMENTS, RS.45 CRORE S WAS PAID TO LAND AGGREGATORS, WHICH, INTURN, WAS PAID IN CASH TO THE LAND OWNERS BY THE LAND AGGREGATORS. ASSESSEES SHARE WORKS OUT TO 12% OF THE SAME. IN ALL THESE 62 CASES, THE ASSESSMENTS WERE MADE U/S.153C OF THE ACT MAKING SIMILAR ADDITIONS AND THE MATTERS REACHED TO THE TRIBUNAL. EXPLAINING THE FATE OF THE ADDITIONS IN THOSE CASES, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE MENTIONED ITA NO.1400/PUN/2015 EKDANTA LAND PVT. LTD., 4 THAT THE TRIBUNAL DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSES SEES ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS. 7. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CASE, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILE D THE FAVOURABLE DECISIONS IN RESPECT OF OTHER LAND AGGREGATORS AND THE SAME ARE GIVEN BELOW: 1. CIT VS. M/S. ARPIT LAND (P) LTD. 78 TAXMANN.COM 300 (BOMBAY) 2. M/S. AVKASH LAND REALITY PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT AND OTH ERS IN ITA NO. 8237/MUM/2011 AND OTHERS DECIDED ON 22-03-2013 3. CIT VS. M/S. LAVANYA LAND PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS INC OME TAX APPEAL NO.72 OF 2014 AND OTHERS 23-06-2017 4. HARSHA LAND PRIVATE LIMITED VS. ITO ITA NO.5666/MU M/2015 DECIDED ON 08-11-2017. LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S.ARP IT LAND PVT. LTD., THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT GRANTED RELIEF ON TECHNICA L GROUNDS. SLP STANDS DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. THE RELIE F WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT THE SAID SEIZED DOCUMENT DID NOT BELONG TO THAT ASSESSEE. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED THAT THE SLP PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF M/S. ARPIT LAND PVT. LTD., M/S. LAVANYA LAND PVT. LTD. AND HARSHA LAND PRIVATE LIMITED (SUPRA) ARE UNIFORMLY DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSES SEE. IT IS HELD THAT THE DOCUMENTS SO SEIZED BY THE REVENUE CANNOT B E HELD TO BE BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEES. THEREFORE, THE RELIEF STANDS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEES ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS. FURTHER, LD. COUNSEL S UBMITTED THAT THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HARSHA LAND PRIVATE LIMITED (SUPRA) PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER DISCUSSING THE RATIOS OF THE JUDGMENTS CITED ABOVE. LD. COUNSEL ALSO RELIED HEAVILY ON THE BOMBA Y HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF M/S. AVKASH LAND REALITY PVT. LTD . VS. DCIT AND OTHERS AS WELL AS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. AMBIT REALTY PVT. LTD., ITA NO.1400/PUN/2015 EKDANTA LAND PVT. LTD., 5 WHEREIN THE SLP FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE THE HONB LE SUPREME COURT ARE DISMISSED. LD. COUNSEL FINALLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIO NS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF SAID LOOSE PAPERS ARE NO T SUSTAINABLE ON THE TECHNICAL GROUNDS. 8. PER CONTRA, LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE RELIED HEAVILY ON TH E SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF VINOD SOLANKI VS. UNION OF I NDIA 16 SC 537 FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE MERELY BECAUSE A STATEMENT IS RETRACTED, IT CANNOT BE TREATED THAT THE FIRST STATEMENT WAS INVO LUNTARY OR UNLAWFULLY OBTAINED. IT IS ONLY FOR THE MAKER OF THE STATEMENT WHO ALLEGES INDUCEMENT, THREAT, PROMISE ETC. TO ESTABLISH THAT SUCH IMPROPER MEA NS HAS BEEN ADOPTED . LD. DR PRAYED FOR CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 9. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES ON THE TECHNICAL ISSUE OF BELONGINGN ESS OF THE SEIZED PAPERS AND MAKING OF ADDITIONS BASED ON SUCH PAPERS IF THEY ARE SUSTAINABLE OR NOT. GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL IS RELEVANT. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS PART OF THE WHOLE GROUP OF 62 LAND AGGREGATORS FOR JAI CORP LTD. AND ASSESSEES NAME A PPEARS IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT. FURTHER ALSO WE FIND THAT THE JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURT AS WELL AS SUPREME COURT IN THE CASES M/S. AVKASH LAND REA LITY PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT AND OTHERS AND IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. AMBIT RE ALTY PVT. LTD., HELD THAT SUCH DOCUMENTS CANNOT BE SAID BELONGING TO TH E ASSESSEE AND THE SAID JUDGMENTS WAS GIVEN ON THE SIMILAR FACTS. 9.1 WE FIND THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. LAVANYA LAND PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS (SUPRA) APPROVED THE FINDING GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL AND IT IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE PROCEED TO EXTRACT THE RELEVANT PARAGR APHS FROM THE SAID JUDGMENT AND THE SAME READ AS UNDER : ITA NO.1400/PUN/2015 EKDANTA LAND PVT. LTD., 6 19. WE ARE NOT IMPRESSED BY THE ARGUMENTS OF THE L EARNED ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL. THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED, AS IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE PERTAINING TO THE ASSES SMENT YEARS 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 2009-10. THESE APPEALS WERE DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 27 TH OCTOBER, 2011. THE REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH SIDES, BY CONSENT, STATED T HAT THERE ARE 67 APPEALS PERTAINING TO 52 DIFFERENT ASSESSEES, INCLUDING THE ONE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH HAVE BEEN DECIDED ON IDENTICAL FACTS. THE IS SUES ARE ALSO COMMON. THAT IS HOW THE TRIBUNAL CLUBBED ALL THE APPEALS TO GETHER FOR THE CONVENIENCE SAKE. 20. THE TRIBUNAL NOTED THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. IT A LSO NOTED THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION UNDER S ECTION 132 AND THE STATEMENT OF DILIP DHERAI. THE TRIBUNAL NOTED THE FACT THAT THE ENTIRE LAND ACQUISITION WAS LOOKED AFTER BY CENTRAL LEADERSHIP TEAM OF WHICH MR. DILIP DHERAI, MR. ANAND JAIN, MR. SANKAY PNKHIA AND MR. A JIT WARTHY ARE KEY MEMBERS. THE TRIBUNAL ALSO REFERRED TO THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. THE TRIBUNAL THEN REFERRED TO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THEN THE TRIBUNAL NOTED THE ARGUMENTS O F BOTH SIDES. THESE ARGUMENTS WERE NOTED IN GREAT DETAILS. THEN, THE T RIBUNAL, IN PARAGRAPH 18 AND 19, HELD AS UNDER : .......................... .......................... 21. THEREAFTER, IN PARAGRAPH 20, THE TRIBUNAL CONSI DERED THE MERITS AND ONCE AGAIN, AT GREAT LENGTH. THE PARTICULAR ARGUME NT REVOLVING AROUND THE STATEMENT OF DILIP DHERAI AND HIS ANSWER TO QUESTIO N NO.24 WAS ALSO CONSIDERED IN PARAGRAPH 21 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THEN, IN PARAGRAPH 22, THE TRIBUNAL REFERS TO THE ADDITIONS MADE UNDER SEC TION 69C. AFTER REPRODUCING SECTION 69C AND ADVERTING TO THE FACT T HAT DILIP DHERAI HAS RETRACTED HIS STATEMENT, THE TRIBUNAL ARRIVED AT TH E CONCLUSION THAT MERELY ON THE STRENGTH OF THE ALLEGED ADMISSION IN THE STATEM ENT OF DILIP DHERAI, THE ADDITIONS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE. THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT WOULD DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF SECTI ON 69C OF THE IT ACT ENABLING THE ADDITIONS WERE NOT SATISFIED. THIS IS NOT A CASE OF NO EXPLANATION. RATHER, THE TRIBUNAL CONCLUDED THAT THE ALLEGATIONS MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY ACTUAL CASH PA SSING HANDS. THE ENTIRE DECISION IS BASED ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND NO MA TERIAL HAS BEEN REFERRED WHICH WOULD CONCLUSIVELY SHOW THAT HUGE AMOUNTS REV EALED FROM THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS ARE TRANSFERRED FROM ONE SIDE TO ANOTHER. IN THAT REGARD, THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE REVENUE DID NOT BRING ON RE CORD A SINGLE STATEMENT OF THE VENDORS OF THE LAND IN DIFFERENT VILLAGES. NON E OF THE SELLERS HAS BEEN EXAMINED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF THE REVENUE T HAT EXTRA CASH HAS ACTUALLY CHANGED HANDS. IT IS IN THESE CIRCUMSTANC ES THAT THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT ON BOTH COUNTS, NAMELY, THE LEGAL ISSUE, AS AL SO MERITS, THE ADDITIONS CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. EVENTUALLY, THE TRIBUNAL HELD IN PARAGRAPH 25 (PA GE 188) AS UNDER : .................... .................... 22. WE DO NOT THINK THAT THIS CASE IS ANY DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE CONSIDERED BY THE DIVISION BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. ARPIT LAN D PVT. LTD., AND M/S. AMBIT REALITY PVT. LTD. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN THE CASE OF M/S. ARPIT LAND PVT. LTD. WAS 2008-09 AND IN THE CASE OF M/S. AMBIT REALITY PVT. LTD., IT WAS 2007-08. THE CONTROVERSY WAS IDENTICAL. THE DIVIS ION BENCH, HAVING CONCLUDED THAT NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISE S FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF IDENTICAL LAN D TRANSACTIONS OF TWO ASSESSEES INVOLVED IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NOS.83 OF 2 014 AND 150 OF 2014, ITA NO.1400/PUN/2015 EKDANTA LAND PVT. LTD., 7 THEN, A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION IS NOT POSSIBLE. WE D O NOT THINK THAT THE SHIFT IN THE STAND OF THE REVENUE CARRIES ITS CASE ANY FURTH ER. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE REVENUE HAS RIGHTLY BEEN FAULTED F OR ITS APPROACH BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE ABOVE ARE PURE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONSISTEN T WITH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. THUS, THE JURISDICTION AND VESTING IN THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD HAVE BEEN EXERCISED AND THE SATISFACT ION IN THAT REGARD WAS ENOUGH, ARE NOT MATTERS WHICH CAN BE DECIDED IN THE FURTHER APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR US TO RE-APPRAISE AND RE- APPRECIATE THE FACTUAL FINDINGS. THE FINDING THAT SECTION 153C WAS NOT ATTRACTED AND ITS INVOCATION WAS BAD IN LAW IS NOT BASED JUST ON AN INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 153C BUT AFTER HOLDING TH AT THE INGREDIENTS OF THE SAME WERE NOT SATISFIED IN THE PRESENT CASE. THAT IS AN EXERCISE CARRIED OUT BY THE TRIBUNAL AS A LAST FACT FINDING AUTHORITY. THEREFORE, THE FINDING IS A MIXED ONE. THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISING FROM SUCH AN ORDER AND WHICH ALTERNATIVELY CONSIDERS THE MERITS OF THE CASE AS WELL. 23. AS A RESULT OF THE ABOVE CONCLUSION, WE CANNOT AGREE WITH THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL THAT WE CAN PASS A DIF FERENT ORDER AND ENTERTAIN THESE APPEALS FOR THE CURRENT YEAR OF THE SEARCH, N AMELY, THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THAT WAS BASED ON THE ARGUMENT THAT THE ACTION UNDER SECTION 153C FOR THIS YEAR IS AN INCORRECT CONCLUSI ON. ALL THE EARLIER ORDERS IN THESE APPEALS HAVING BEING NOTED BY US, WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN CONCLUDING THAT DESPITE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY BEING GIVEN TO THE REVENUE, IT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SATISFY THIS COURT THAT A DIFFEREN T VIEW CAN BE TAKEN. 4. AS A RESULT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, AND WHEN IT IS CONCEDED THAT ALL THESE APPEALS INVOLVE IDENTICAL ISSUE AND CHALLENGE , WE PROCEED TO DISMISS THEM BUT WITHOUT ANY ORDERS AS COSTS. 9.2 WE ALSO FIND THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ARPIT LAND PVT. LTD., AS WELL AS IN THE CASE OF M/S. AMBIT R EALITY PVT. LTD., DATED 07-02-2017 (SUPRA) DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE. FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS, WE PROCEED TO EXTRACT THE RE LEVANT PARAS FROM THE SAID JUDGMENT : 6. WE NOTE THAT IN TERMS OF SECTION 153C OF THE AC T AT THE RELEVANT TIME, I.E. PRIOR TO IST JUNE, 2015 THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT COULD ONLY BE INITIATED/PROCEEDED AGAINST A PARTY ASSESSEE IF THE DOCUMENT SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS OF ANOTHER PERSON BELONGED TO THE PARTY ASSESSEE CONCERNED. THE IMPUGNED ORDER RECORDS A FINDING OF FACT THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS WHICH FORMED THE BASIS OF INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE DO N OT BELONG TO IT. THIS FINDING OF FACT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO US TO BE INCORRECT. FURTHER, THE IMPUGNED ORDER PLACED RELIANCE UPON A DECISION OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE VIJAYBHAI CHANDRANI VS. ACIT 333 ITR PAGE 436 W HICH RECORDS THAT THE CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTIO N 153C OF THE ACT IS THAT THE DOCUMENT FOUND DURING SEARCH PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BELONG TO ASSESSEE TO WHOM NOTICE IS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT . IT WAS FAIRLY POINTED OUT TO US BY MR. MISTRY, THE LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE THAT THE ABOVE DECISION WAS REVERSED BY TH E SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. VIJAYBHAI N. CHANDRANI (2013) 357 ITR 713. HOW EVER, WE FIND THAT THE APEX COURT REVERSED THE VIEW OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT ON THE GROUND THAT EFFICACIOUS ALTERNATIVE REMEDY WAS AVAILABLE TO THE PETITIONER TO RAISE ITS ITA NO.1400/PUN/2015 EKDANTA LAND PVT. LTD., 8 OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES UNDER THE ACT. T HEREFORE, THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE EXERCISED ITS EXTRA ORDINARY WRIT JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE PETITION. HOWEVER, THE APEX COURT AL SO CLARIFIED THAT IT WAS NOT EXPRESSING ANY OPINION OF THE CORRECTNESS OR OTHERW ISE OF CONSTRUCTION PLACED BY THE HIGH COURT ON SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. THE REVENUE HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY REASON WHY THE CONSTRUCTION PUT ON SECTION 153C OF THE ACT BY GUJARAT HIGH COURT IS NOT CORRECT/APPROPRIATE. WE FIND THAT IN ANY CASE OUR COURT HAS ALSO TAKEN A SIMILAR VIEW IN CIT VS. SINH GAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY (2015) 378 ITR 84 AND REFUSED TO ENTERTAIN REVENUES APPEAL. 7. THE GRIEVANCE OF REVENUE AS SUBMITTED BY MR. KOTANGLE I S A SUBMISSION MADE ON THE BASIS OF SUSPICION AND NOT O N THE BASIS OF ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD WHICH WOULD INDICATE THAT TH E RESPONDENT- ASSESSEE AND PERSONS SEARCHED WERE ALL PART OF THE SAME GROUP. BE THAT AS IT MAY, THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT CANNOT BE IGNORED AT THE ALTER OF SUSPICION. THE REVENUE HAS TO STRI CTLY COMPLY WITH SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NON SATIS FACTION OF THE CONDITION PRECEDENT VIZ., THE SEIZED DOCUMENT MUST BELONG TO THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE IS A JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE AND NON SATISFACTION THER EOF WOULD MAKE THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS TAKEN THEREUNDER NULL AND VOID. THE IS SUE OF SECTION 69C OF THE ACT CAN ONLY ARISE FOR CONSIDERATION IF THE PROCEED INGS UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT ARE UPHELD. THEREFORE, IN THE PRESENT FACT S, THE ISSUE OF SECTION 69C OF THE ACT IS ACADEMIC. 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE REASONS AND PARTICULARLY TH E FINDING OF FACT THAT SEIZED DOCUMENT WHICH FORMS THE BASIS OF THE PRESEN T PROCEEDINGS, DO NOT BELONG TO THE PETITIONER AND THE SAME NOT BE ING SHOWN TO BE PERVERSE, THE QUESTION AS RAISED DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO ANY S UBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AND THUS NOT ENTERTAINED. FROM THE ABOVE JUDGMENTS, IT IS A SETTLED ISSUE THAT THE SEIZED PAPERS SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF JAI CORP GROUP AND OTHERS CAN NOT BE RELIED UPON FOR MAKING ADDITIONS IN THE HANDS OF THE LAND AGGREGA TORS WHOSE NAMES APPEARED IN THE SAID DOCUMENTS. IT IS NOT THE C ASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE JUDGMENTS/DECISIONS DELIVERED IN THE CASES OF AP PEALS INVOLVING M/S. ARPIT LAND PVT. LTD., M/S. LAVANYA LAND PVT. LTD. A ND HARSHA LAND PRIVATE LIMITED (SUPRA) ETC. DO NOT RELATE TO SUCH LAND AG GREGATORS. THESE NAMES ALSO APPEARED IN THE SAID SEIZED PAPERS ALONG WITH THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. ON SIMILAR FACTS, THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ARPIT LAND PVT. LTD., AS WELL AS IN THE CAS E OF M/S. AMBIT REALITY PVT. LTD., HELD THAT THE SAID SEIZED DOCUMENTS CANN OT BE HELD TO BE BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE BINDING DECISIONS OF HONBLE HIGH COURT AS WELL AS HONBLE APEX COURT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION ITA NO.1400/PUN/2015 EKDANTA LAND PVT. LTD., 9 THAT THE GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE ALLOWED ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS. 10. SINCE WE HAVE ALLOWED THE GROUND NO.2 IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE, IN OUR VIEW, ADJUDICATION OF GROUND NOS.1 AND 3 TO 5 BECOMES AN ACADEMIC EXERCISE. THEREFORE, THE SAID GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED AS A CADEMIC. GROUND NO.6 BEING CONSEQUENTIAL AND GROUND NO.7 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE ARE DISMISSED, AS GENERAL/CONSEQUENTIAL, AS THE CASE MAY BE. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 17 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (D.KARUNAKAR A RAO ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / PUNE; DATED : 17 TH OCTOBER, 2018. SATISH / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A)-2, THANE 4. / THE PR. CIT-1, THANE 5. , , A / DR A, ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY // / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE